NYC Elections: AI Deepfakes Put New York Campaign Rules to the Test

The NY-21 congressional race has highlighted new questions about how New York election law applies to AI-generated campaign content. According to a report by WCAX, Republican congressional candidate Anthony Constantino released an AI-generated video depicting Democratic candidate Blake Gendebien making statements he did not actually make.

The video looked and sounded like Gendebien but used artificial intelligence to create the content. Constantino said he made the video in response to an earlier AI-generated video from Gendebien’s campaign that targeted former Rep. Elise Stefanik.

The dispute highlights an important point for NYC elections: disclosing the use of AI is not necessarily the same as banning AI-generated campaign content.

What Happened in the NY-21 Race?

The controversy began after both campaigns used AI-generated political content.

Gendebien’s campaign previously released an AI video targeting Stefanik. Gendebien described the video as satire and parody.

Constantino later released his own AI-generated video. The video depicted Gendebien saying things that Gendebien had not actually said.

The use of AI quickly became a campaign issue. The question was not only whether the content was accurate, but also whether Constantino had followed New York’s disclosure requirements.

Harvey Schantz, a political science professor at SUNY Plattsburgh, told WCAX that Constantino appeared to satisfy the applicable disclosure requirement by clearly identifying the video as AI-generated.

That distinction matters for candidates using synthetic media in New York.

AI Disclosure Does Not Necessarily Mean AI Is Prohibited

New York’s election rules can require candidates to disclose certain uses of AI in political communications. However, a disclosure requirement does not automatically mean that campaigns cannot use AI.

Candidates should consider three separate questions:

1. Did the campaign use AI to create or significantly alter the content?
2. Does the communication fall under New York’s AI disclosure requirements?
3. Did the campaign provide the required disclosure clearly?

These questions should be reviewed separately.

A campaign can comply with a disclosure rule and still face criticism over the content. Likewise, criticism of an AI-generated advertisement does not automatically establish that the advertisement violates election law.

Why This Matters for NYC Elections

The NY-21 race is outside New York City, but the issue has broader implications for political campaigns across the state.

A City Council campaign could use AI-generated images, audio, video, or other synthetic content in digital advertising. That makes AI campaign rules relevant to candidates preparing for NYC elections.

The dispute also shows why candidates need to separate legal compliance from campaign judgment.

An AI advertisement may satisfy a disclosure requirement but still affect how voters view a candidate. Content involving an opponent can also create additional concerns if voters believe the person actually made statements that were generated or altered by AI.

For campaign teams, the review process should therefore go beyond asking whether an AI disclosure appears on the advertisement.

What NYC Candidates Should Know About AI Campaign Ads

Check the Rules Before Publishing

Campaign teams should determine whether an AI-generated advertisement falls under New York’s election disclosure requirements before publishing it.

The NY-21 dispute shows why this step matters. According to Schantz’s comments to WCAX, Constantino’s disclosure helped satisfy the applicable requirement.

First-time candidates should not assume that every AI communication receives the same legal treatment. The type of content, how it is distributed, and the applicable election rules can affect the analysis.

Make the Disclosure Clear

An AI disclosure helps voters understand that the content has been generated or altered.

That becomes especially important when a video makes it appear that a candidate said something they never said.

In the NY-21 race, Gendebien criticized the video, while Constantino defended his use of AI as a response to Gendebien’s earlier campaign video.

Candidates should therefore make disclosures easy to understand and visible to voters.

Keep Campaign Records

Campaign teams should keep copies of advertisements, scripts, creative files, AI-generated materials, and disclosures.

Good records can help campaigns establish what they published and what disclosure accompanied the content.

This can become especially important when several staff members, consultants, designers, or advertising platforms participate in the production process.

Understand Ballot Access Separately

AI advertising does not replace the basic requirements for getting on the ballot.

Candidates still need to meet the applicable eligibility, petition, filing, and ballot access requirements for the office they seek. Campaign teams can review New York election and ballot access rules when building their campaign timeline.

Ballot access and AI compliance are separate parts of campaign planning. A strong digital strategy cannot compensate for a failure to meet an election filing requirement.

Campaign Finance and AI Advertising

AI campaign content can also create campaign finance considerations.

A campaign might pay for AI software, consultants, video production, digital advertising, graphic design, or other services. Those costs remain campaign expenses even when AI helps produce the final advertisement.

For NYC candidates, campaigns should track who created the content, which services they purchased, where the advertisement appeared, and how campaign funds paid for the work.

AI therefore belongs within the campaign’s broader compliance process.

Voter Targeting and District Strategy

AI-generated content can also affect voter targeting and district strategy.

A City Council campaign may use digital advertising to reach different groups of voters across its district. Synthetic content can make that process more complex when it involves recognizable candidates or public figures.

The NY-21 dispute also shows how quickly AI can become part of a campaign messaging cycle. One campaign used AI, and the opposing campaign responded with its own AI-generated content.

Candidates should consider more than whether a message will attract attention. They should also consider how voters may interpret it and whether it supports the campaign’s long-term credibility.

What This Means for First-Time Candidates

The NY-21 dispute offers several practical lessons for people considering a campaign in New York.

First, understand the disclosure requirements. Know when AI-generated political communications require disclosure before publishing them.

Second, separate compliance from campaign judgment. A communication may satisfy an election rule while still creating political or reputational concerns.

Third, document campaign materials. Keep copies of advertisements, scripts, source materials, and disclosures.

Fourth, consider the context. Voters may interpret obvious satire differently from content that makes an opponent appear to say something they never said.

Finally, protect voter trust. Legal compliance should be the minimum standard, not the only consideration when evaluating campaign communications.

How AI Fits Into Broader Campaign Strategy

AI advertising should also fit within a campaign’s broader strategy.

Candidates need to consider how digital communications interact with voter data, district priorities, fundraising, field operations, and campaign messaging.

The same principle applies when reviewing election results. Campaign teams can use New York’s 2026 primary election results to understand recent voting patterns and the political environment before deciding how to communicate with voters.

This does not mean every campaign should use AI. Instead, candidates should evaluate whether the technology supports their message and whether its use creates additional compliance or credibility concerns.

What Happens Next?

The NY-21 controversy reflects a larger challenge for New York campaigns.

AI tools can now produce realistic political images, audio, and video with relatively little effort. As these tools become more common, campaigns will need clear procedures for reviewing and documenting synthetic content.

For NYC elections, that means campaign teams should consider AI alongside election law, campaign finance, voter targeting, and communications strategy.

Candidates should also recognize that disclosure alone may not settle every political question surrounding AI-generated content. Voters may still debate whether a particular advertisement is fair, misleading, satirical, or appropriate.

Conclusion

The NY-21 AI deepfake controversy shows how quickly artificial intelligence is becoming part of modern campaign strategy.

For NYC elections, the key lesson is that candidates should understand both the legal requirements and the practical consequences of using synthetic media.

Before publishing AI-generated content, campaigns should determine whether disclosure is required, provide the disclosure clearly, maintain appropriate records, and consider how voters may interpret the message.

As AI becomes more common in political advertising, first-time candidates and established campaigns will need clear processes for reviewing, documenting, and evaluating synthetic content before it reaches voters.